Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the motor imagery scores: kinaesthetic and visual [internal and external] scales at Time 1 and Time 2.
| Dimensions | n | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time 1 (test) | |||
| KI | 86 | 5.30 | 1.26 |
| IVI | 86 | 5.63 | 0.98 |
| EVI | 86 | 5.89 | 0.85 |
| VI-comb | 86 | 5.76 | 0.84 |
| KI | 80 | 5.31 | 1.29 |
| IVI | 80 | 5.67 | 1.00 |
| EVI | 80 | 5.92 | 0.85 |
| VI-comb | 80 | 5.79 | 0.85 |
| Time 2 (re-test) | |||
| KI | 80 | 5.38 | 1.29 |
| IVI | 80 | 5.79 | 0.89 |
| EVI | 80 | 5.88 | 0.88 |
| VI-comb | 80 | 5.84 | 0.83 |
[i] KI – kinaesthetic imagery; n – number of investigated subjects; IMI – internal visual imagery; EVI external visual imagery; VI-comb – combined results of both the IVI and EVI
Table 2
Differences in imagery ability scores for kinaesthetic and visual [internal and external] scales considering participants’ characteristics such as age, gender and sport participation. Data were presented as Means ± Standard deviations [SD] for all participants assessed in Time 1 [n=86].
| Dimensions | Category | Number of subjects | Mean±SD | Z value | P value between groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KI | Age | ||||
| younger adults | 63 | 5.36±1.27 | |||
| older adults | 23 | 5.13±1.22 | -1.137 | 0.256 | |
| Gender | |||||
| females | 41 | 5.33±1.20 | |||
| males | 45 | 5.27±1.33 | -0.252 | 0.801 | |
| Athlete or not | |||||
| athlete | 22 | 5.14±1.30 | |||
| non-athlete | 64 | 5.36±1.25 | -0.984 | 0.325 | |
| IVI | Age | ||||
| younger adults | 63 | 5.71±0.97 | |||
| older adults | 23 | 5.43 ± 0.99 | -1.130 | 0.259 | |
| Gender | |||||
| females | 41 | 5.75±0.87 | |||
| males | 45 | 5.53±1.06 | -0.862 | 0.389 | |
| Athlete or not | |||||
| athlete | 22 | 5.69±0.84 | |||
| non-athlete | 64 | 5.61±1.03 | -0.70 | 0.944 | |
| EVI | Age | ||||
| younger adults | 63 | 5.95±1.22 | |||
| older adults | 23 | 5.71±0.79 | -1.488 | 0.137 | |
| Gender | |||||
| females | 41 | 5.94±0.68 | |||
| males | 45 | 5.84±0.98 | -0.061 | 0.951 | |
| Athlete or not | |||||
| athlete | 22 | 5.90±0.80 | |||
| non-athlete | 64 | 5.89±0.87 | -0.229 | 0.819 |
[i] KI – kinaesthetic imagery; n – number of investigated subjects; IMI – internal visual imagery; EVI external visual imagery
Table 3
Analysis of the means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum scores for each item at T1 [n=86 subjects].
| Items | Scale | Mean score | Standard deviation | Minimum score | Maximum score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | KI | 5.27 | 1.47 | 1.00 | 7.00 |
| 2 | IVI | 5.42 | 1.33 | 2.00 | 7.00 |
| 3 | EVI | 6.01 | 0.93 | 3.00 | 7.00 |
| 4 | KI | 5.20 | 1.39 | 1.00 | 7.00 |
| 5 | IVI | 5.81 | 1.14 | 3.00 | 7.00 |
| 6 | EVI | 5.81 | 1.18 | 2.00 | 7.00 |
| 7 | KI | 5.42 | 1.52 | 1.00 | 7.00 |
| 8 | IVI | 5.44 | 1.28 | 1.00 | 7.00 |
| 9 | EVI | 5.88 | 0.98 | 3.00 | 7.00 |
| 10 | KI | 5.47 | 1.50 | 1.00 | 7.00 |
| 11 | IVI | 5.86 | 1.17 | 3.00 | 7.00 |
| 12 | EVI | 5.85 | 1.16 | 2.00 | 7.00 |
[i] KI – kinaesthetic imagery; n – number of investigated subjects; IMI – internal visual imagery; EVI external visual imagery
Table 4
Between Time 1 and Time 2 reliability analysis of the kinaesthetic and visual [internal and external] motor imagery scales.
| Variable | Time 1 | Time 2 | P ANOVA | CV (%) | MDC | SEM | ICC (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KI | 5.31±1.29 | 5.38±1.29 | 0.420 | 6.7 | 1.04 points | 0.38 | 0.92 (0.87-0.95) |
| IVI | 5.67±1.00 | 5.79±0.89 | 0.059 | 5.9 | 0.88 points | 0.31 | 0.89 (0.82-0.93) |
| EVI | 5.92±0.85 | 5.88±0.88 | 0.508 | 4.9 | 0.79 points | 0.29 | 0.89 (0.83-0.93) |
[i] PANOVA – P-value of repeated measures analysis of variance; CV – within subject coefficient of variation; MDC – minimal detectable change; SEM – standard error of estimate; ICC [95% CI] – intra-class correlation coefficient with 95% confidence intervals.
Table 5
Result of exploratory factor analysis for the Slovenian version of the MIQ-3.
| Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | |
| 1 | 4.656 | 38.796 | 38.796 | 4.656 | 38.796 | 38.796 |
| 2 | 2.521 | 21.006 | 59.802 | 2.521 | 21.006 | 59.802 |
| 3 | .945 | 7.878 | 67.680 | |||
| 4 | .770 | 6.418 | 74.098 | |||
| 5 | .634 | 5.281 | 79.379 | |||
| 6 | .511 | 4.257 | 83.637 | |||
| 7 | .473 | 3.943 | 87.579 | |||
| 8 | .427 | 3.562 | 91.141 | |||
| 9 | .303 | 2.526 | 93.667 | |||
| 10 | .297 | 2.478 | 96.145 | |||
| 11 | .258 | 2.151 | 98.295 | |||
| 12 | .205 | 1.705 | 100.000 | |||
Table 6
MIQ-3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Models with a Proper Solution.
| Model | Chi2 | df | p | CFI | TLI | RMR/SRMR | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present Study (Slovenian population) | |||||||
| MODEL 1 (EVI vs. IVI vs. KI) MODEL 2 (EVI and IVI vs. KI) | 75.403 91.36 | 51 53 | 0.015 0.001 | 0.94 0.91 | 0.93 0.89 | 0.108 0.120 | 0.07 0.09 |
| MODEL 3 (IVI and KI vs. EVI) | 191.10 | 53 | <0.001 | 0.67 | 0.59 | 0.332 | 0.18 |
| Previous Study (38) | |||||||
| MODEL 1 (EVI vs. IVI vs. KI) | 75.12 | 39 | <0.001 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
| MODEL 2 (EVI and IVI vs. KI) | 369.13 | 41 | <0.001 | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.11 | 0.15 |
| MODEL 3 (IVI and KI vs. EVI) | 243.66 | 41 | <0.001 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.07 | 0.12 |
[i] KI – kinaesthetic imagery; IMI – internal visual imagery; EVI external visual imagery; Chi2 – chi-squared test; df – degrees of freedom; p – statistical significance of test; CFI – Comparative Fit Index; TLI – Tucker-Lewis index; RMR/SRMR – Root Mean square Residual and Standardized RMR; RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
Figure 1
The graphic representation of two models tested by the confirmatory factor analysis: A) MODEL 1 is the correlated trait–correlated uniqueness model with IVI, EVI, and KI all as separate factors and B) MODEL 2 is the correlated trait–correlated uniqueness model with EVI and IVI perspectives as one factor and KI as another. The numbers in the rectangles represent the number of items in the questionnaire, and in the ellipses are the names of the factors. Best model fits were achieved with Model 1 [three-factor model with IVI, EVI and KI all as separate factors].